Looking at the evidence above, I’m not sure it’s clear that Mr. Strickland was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm and imminence was imminent. As confusing as that last bit sounds, it’s crucial to his defense. While Mr. Strickland may have been in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, was that threat in the actual process of happening when he drew his firearm?

The use of deadly force laws (which include threats of deadly force) vary from state to state. Regardless of the written law, the legality of justifiable deadly force ultimately depends on the “reasonable person standard.” Would a reasonable person have drawn in the same circumstances?

Again, I reckon the videos presented here are not conclusive. I can’t see anyone in the act of trying to hurt Mr. Strickland. I see people who’d intimated him, and one who shoved him, approaching. But that is not in and of itself a lethal threat. Also, he points the gun in several directions, which is understandable but doesn’t speak of a specific threat.

In some states, Mr. Strickland would be legally obliged to effect a retreat in the face of a violent threat — despite the fact that he had a legal right to be where he was at the time of the incident. In Oregon, where this confrontation occurred, Mr. Strickland had a right to stand his ground.

Common sense said Mr. Strickland should have beat a hasty retreat. But he didn’t. He drew his gun and suffered the consequences. The judge/jury will now consider the totality of circumstances to decide if he acted lawfully. I wonder if Mr. Strickland videod the organizer advising bystanders to shoot police? Not entirely relevant, but not irrelevant either.

Let me make something crystal clear. Strickland is a pro-2nd Amendment activist and Conservative who exposes Liberals for the fools they are, last year he was violently attacked at a protest while videotaping deranged Leftists (either in Portland Oregon or Seattle Wash) had his arm broken in two places, was knocked to the ground, beaten about the head and kicked repeatedly. Strickland is a victim of constant stalking, death threats and his home and vehicles have been repeatedly vandalized. He was issued a concealed carry permit due to all the threats he’s subjected to on a daily basis.

The shame here is that Strickland is being politically “persecuted” and prosecuted by a Liberal district attorney. I hope he sues the police department, prosecutor, and city takings them for millions for failing to protect him and HIS “civil rights”. Strickland does have a “defense fund” is anyone is inclined to donate to his defense:

Yeah… Because a group that advocates mass murder of police officers and then has its members carry that out is totally just a political disagreement. Black Lives Matter is a black supremacist terrorist hate group. They deserve the same treatment we give ISIS.

Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us? Do you really consider yourself a thinking, capable, responsible person?

What on earth would have been accomplished by what you advocate except dead bodies and more gun control legislation?

The last thing I need is some idiot video blogger plugging people in my town because he got carried away trying to create material for his politics blog. I like my Oregon gun laws to remain as minimal as they are (particularly for a west coast state).

Correct: just because other BLM supporters were violent somewhere else doesn’t mean he’s justified in using deadly force against people who are advancing on him and yelling. There has to be a reasonable belief that there is an actual, imminent threat before he could pull his gun.

And say what you will about BLM (and there’s certainly a lot to say) this guy was going out of his way to get reactions from people so he could throw it up on his blog, actively putting himself in an antagonistic situation. Strickland was acting no better than the BLM people you are calling terrorists, he just happens to be on your side of the political spectrum, but it doesnt make him any less of a crazy shitbag. Being such is not isolated to one side of the political spectrum or the other.

So you’re telling me that a black reporter who has a mob of KKK members advancing on him and threatening him does not have a reasonable belief that he is in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm? Really?

“So you’re telling me that a black reporter who has a mob of KKK members advancing on him and threatening him. . .”

Well duh, of course that’s different. If even a single person is threatening him he may draw and shoot if necessary to stop the threat. Doesn’t even matter if he is black, or the other guy is KKK or not. A threat is a threat.

I can’t say if I would draw in the particular situation, but with the fact that protesters continued to follow Strickland as he was making an effort to leave (including making contact with him) I can’t say I would have turned my back to them as I was walking away either.

I am afraid that the fact that this guy did not shoot and was arrested will further embolden these assholes so the next guy that is armed and in their presence is in greater danger. People do stupid fucking shit when fronting for a mob. They get an invincibility complex. They will walk right into a pointed gun.

He was retreating. The hostile mob was continuing to follow. In my opinion, the hostile mob constitutes a lethal threat. In a heartbeat something could have happened. As the mob feeds off itself into a frenzy, there are simply too many threats to fully ascertain if one of them would do something life threatening.

They could have turned violent, but they didn’t, and that’s why he’s screwed. On the video they are just yelling at him. If he had turned and run and a mob chased him down, then disparate force could be reason to shoot someone. But it didn’t go that far.

This sounds like a “prove armed citizens have stopped a mass shooting” nonsense.

Anyway, with the Disparity of Force present with a large group against one man, who can say how “imminent” the threat really was?

And you are wrong about another thing, Kevin. The DGU-er does not necessarily have to prove the threat WAS imminent, only that he believed it to be so and that a reasonable person in his shoes at the time could have drawn the same conclusion.

So, put a reasonable person into his shoes…a large group of angry people advancing on him. Can you not concede that it was at least possible that he legitimately thought his life was in danger?

Because that’s the question his lawyers are likely to ask the jury to consider…not WAS there a threat that we can all see and point to now. Real cases are not that black and white, and that’s why the Reasonable Person standard exists as it does.

“And you are wrong about another thing, Kevin. The DGU-er does not necessarily have to prove the threat WAS imminent, only that he believed it to be so and that a reasonable person in his shoes at the time could have drawn the same conclusion.”

You’re right, but I’m not wrong. I never said he did something illegal to pull the gun, only that he’s screwed because he drew down on unarmed protesters and they will make an example of him. You’ve quoted the correct objective legal standard, but at the end of the day he’s still the villain, even if he held his fire.

Like I said in my original post: “Standing ground and brandishing may be theoretically legal, but its dumb.” He should have run for it.

By the time you turn your back as you are running away from the mob and they “chase you down” it may already be too late. You can be swarmed and unable to draw your gun, or they could simply take it from you and use it against you. If you’re turned around running and multiple people grab you, it is a safe bet that you will be unable to get your hands on your gun and draw/use it in any effective manner.

If I have a gun on me, I am not going to trade punches. Not one on one, and not one on ten. I can fight. I am not afraid to fight. But what if I lose? Why waste the effort? If something happens where I need to smash someone’s face in, why not use the gun? If for some reason (can’t imagine any) that I am not armed and attacked, yeah, I’ll throw punches, kicks, holds, whatever it takes. But when I have a gun, no one will injure me unless it is a surprise attack. My gun is for keeping the peace. I have stopped flipping off stupid drivers since I have been carrying. Just don’t go down that road. An armed society is a polite society. I believe that. The gun in the video above truly was a peace maker. Only feelings were hurt. I know to the SJWs, hurting the feelings is a crime against humanity, but, fuk-em.

“only that he’s screwed because he drew down on unarmed protesters and they will make an example of him. “

That remains to be seen.

It depends 100% on who his lawyer is.

They said in Canada that Jian Ghomeshi was screwed as well, and his attorney was able to open up a whole can of whoop-ass…the impacts from her butt kicking are still ringing.

If his lawyer is worth his snot, the unarmed thing won’t play…disparity of force will. And, there may be additional evidence that shows the mob was more aggressive than we know now. Maybe not. We just have to see.

We’ve GOT to believe the system can work. We can’t give up and just say “they’ll make an example out of him.”

Hell, they tried that with both Zimmerman and Wilson and it failed, and there was actual death involved in those two cases. True this is quite different, but let’s not pull the plug of “hope” just yet.

I’m going to agree with this. You retreat from a mob with many people that could seriously harm or kill you, they follow you, and that can be a do or die situation. If he can convince the jury that he felt like he was about to be seriously hurt then he’s got a legal DGU. Not knowing exactly what was going on, I’d say this could have been a good time to use the hand on the gun without clearing leather approach. You could probably be charged with brandishing if you have your hand on a holstered weapon, but it seams like it might be a decent grey area between drawing and not drawing. Anybody can say they’d do a better job, people need to realize that they weren’t there.

Even if all the factors are present, it is necessary to follow the rule to make all efforts to avoid the use of deadly force. If you can safely retreat or escape, then that should be your course of action.

Unless this guy was being physically attacked and it was reasonable to believe that it was going to turn into a mob attack, that would’ve been the strongest reason to present and use deadly force.

As far as that thug trying to intimidate him, well the police should’ve tackled and arrested that mongoloid. Not to mention that guy was clearly inciting the crowd to go shoot people.

The video I’ve seen all starts after the draw. A crowd, including several masked people, is advancing on him while verbally threatening him. There were multiple people in the crowd recording it, but all of them have edited their video to start after the draw. Is there something there they don’t want us to see? I suspect Strickland is keeping his video private under legal advice. Pre-draw video would make it very clear if he was justified or not, but with just this video, I’d say there’s enough for reasonable doubt.

We also have to account for the fact that multiple people were advancing on Mr. Strickland. That is a much more serious threat than one person flapping their jaw. And then there is the fact that people kept advancing on him after he pointed a handgun at them and had retreated backward for a long time. (One of the antagonists even got close enough and shoved Mr. Strickland at the end of the video.)

Personally, I think any trial will result in a hung jury. Some will think Mr. Strickland was justified and some will not. Either way, it will be obvious that Mr. Strickland exercised restraint since he did not pull the trigger and I think that will play to his advantage with a jury.

Furthermore, the fact that someone previously delivered serious injuries to Mr. Strickland without any apparent provocation on Mr. Strickland’s part will play in his favor. Consider a parallel situation. Imagine that someone recorded video of a woman’s rape … and a year later two or three men begin expressing their desire for sexual activity with that woman and advancing toward her obviously against her will. If she drew a handgun and pointed it at the men advancing toward her after she told the men repeatedly to stop, would a jury convict her? How is this any different?

I was in downtown Ptown that day (and carrying) and while I didnt see the incident occur (was on my way to grab food), I did see some of the setup, and this guy was…well, lets just say he was trying to create content for his website. I’m not terribly sympathetic.

Wait a minute, what about all the cases of DGUs that go unreported “because no shots were fired”?
If we are going to tout those stats, how can we condemn this case? Imminent threat is used in justification for actually shooting someone. He drew his gun and pointed it at the mob and they retreated so he showed wonderful restraint. He was also backing away. Distance is your friend.
Seems like this article smells of double standard.

We don’t believe in the first amendment arguments for the 2nd start to fall apart. Conversations and a group of people including masked individuals approaching aggressively let’s not forget the 21ft rule

Hate to disagree, but that is irrelevant. Both Left and Right troll each other big time at events like this, and everyone is better served by not feeding the other sides agenda by losing your cool. A prog SJW can say whatever they want to me in public and no matter how offended I am, I can’t do anything physical unless a credible threat is occurring. That is why it is called self-defense. Just because someone is at a public event challenging your political or social convictions doesn’t mean you get to intimidate them and shove them. That’s being aggressive, not defending yourself.

A credible threat of imminent death or great bodily harm is the legal standard to justify use of deadly force. Here is the rub: most, if not all, jurisdictions consider drawing and pointing a firearm at a person as use of deadly force even if you don’t attempt to actually shoot the person.

So, according to current legal standards, when Mr. Strickland pointed his firearm at those people, he deployed deadly force even though he did not pull the trigger. Apparently the local prosecutor does not think there was a credible, imminent threat of death or great bodily harm so he/she is prosecuting Mr. Strickland for felonious assault or something similar.

When he’s actively drawing attention to himself and attempting to incite drama to create content for his blog, that theory tends to fall apart. He was manufacturing confrontations to get on video and got carried away.

Irrelevant. He had the right to be there and say whatever he wanted. They did not have the right to advance on him and assault him. When they escalated the situation, they became the aggressors and use of deadly force became justified.

It’s very relevant when you’re baiting people into that confrontation, especially when doing so for political and monetary gain. That doesnt fly.

If you arent pulling the trigger, you arent in imminent danger, and thus shouldnt be clearing leather. That’s a pretty common standard in oregon concealed carry classes.

This dude went out of his way to get himself into a confrontation, and then whipped out a gun when he got scared, but not scared enough to pull the trigger, and thus probably not in imminent danger.

He’s almost certainly going to get the book thrown at him, and by those standards, rightfully so. As an Oregon CHL holder, who was downtown and carrying that day, I can’t say that I will feel sorry at all for him.

“If you arent pulling the trigger, you arent in imminent danger, and thus shouldnt be clearing leather. That’s a pretty common standard in oregon concealed carry classes.”

That is shorthand taught to newbies in an effort to get them to think about the consequences before they draw. In the real world it doesn’t always happen that way. If everybody went by some “rule” that if you clear leather, you shoot, there would be a lot of unnecessary shooting.

@Michael in GA: Yep. But, at least in Ohio, that isn’t taught in most of the entry level CHL classes (nor should it be mandated). That’s the closest analog I have to compare with the entry level concealed carry classes he was referring to in Oregon. It seemed like he was making that the final say on defensive gun use and we know it to be just shorthand to get the newbies thinking first

The closest thing I’ve seen to a good video shows him walking backwards as a few (2 or 3 IIRC) people pursue him. Then he gets some clear distance and draws. I have no idea whether it was brandishing, assault with a deadly, or self defense.

It’s said that his youtube channel specializes in videos of pissed off SJWs, and perhaps he’s in the business of intentionally antagonizing them to get fodder for youtube? If so, it’s hard to claim self defense when the other guy did what you were trying to get him to do.

I’d say take a few witness statements, and if the preponderance of witnesses are against him, you have probable cause for arrest.

Your legally carried pistol is not a deterrent to get someone to leave you alone, its to protect you from EMINENT death, substantial risk of death, or grievous bodily injury. Knowing he was going to a racially charged protest, he and his group should have had an exit strategy. The foresight to plan an exit strategy should things go south would have served him well and most likely kept him out of jail.

“Knowing he was going to a racially charged protest, he and his group should have had an exit strategy.”

(This post is rhetorical and not directed at you.)

If he was not white, would the crowd have treated him this way? Because of his skin color, did he not have a right to be on a public street, filming and possibly speaking?

If we reverse the races, so to speak… A black man with a camera and a YouTube channel is at a White Power protest… The same situation occurs… Would it be perceived differently in the media? Would it be perceived differently by PTOG? Would it be perceived differently by the courts?

Yes it would. It’s not right. But see a double standard on display here. And not just with the black and white issue.
Every time TTAG posts a story of a person getting beaten by a mob, it get categorized as a should have been a DGU.
I am not giving the hateful mob the first punch. If drawing the gun keeps them at bay and I don’t have to shoot, why is that used against me?
WWACD?
What Would A Cop Do?
Cops pull guns on people without shooting, once they get compliance. Are they charged with a crime?

I said it the first time this was posted here, and I’ll say it again: if you stick around after you’ve pulled your gun, were you actually in danger of grievous bodily harm? I don’t think a person actually in danger would have re-holstered and stuck around the scene, but that’s just me…

Yea, we had an incident here with a bunch of thugs (4 male 1 female, no other description has been released…) stole a car a few towns away and there was some sort of chase… shots fired and they ended up in a park a few miles from my house. Anyway the details aren’t what I mean to point out. This is pretty garden variety crime in the end, bunch of drunk kids with guns and no brains.

They had at least a few hundred cops out looking for these idiots, they had the MRAP out, the mobile command center, streets lined with cops on lookout with their ARs, it looked like a war zone. Serious overkill on the part of the cops.

The fuzz are all worked up about something from coast to coast. And don’t be fooled, all this armament and warlike acting is all about protecting them first. This is dangerous, especially for non cops who have to follow the law down to the very last period.

Very dangerous.

And actually this brings up another thought. As to whether this guy was justified to draw… if he was a cop in the same situation, this question wouldn’t even be on the table. I guarantee it.

Indeed. I am just thinking out loud here. The thing is that, as a cop, the risk of being ambushed by someone with an AR (or whatever) has always been >0. So we see all these reactions over the past few days and think ‘of course they are worried’, we all get that.

I am just saying they sure are acting awfully worried. Is it an overreaction? Are they worried about something that we don’t know about?

It’s dangerous for all of us, not just them. It certainly is a really good time to stay away from the fuzz, if you have any choice in the matter.

I’m willing to accept that Strickland brandished his firearm because he was scared, but scared of what? I saw a guy get up in Strickland’s face, but I didn’t see a threat of death or serious bodily injury. However, just because I didn’t see it doesn’t mean that a deadly threat wasn’t there.

Again…he was actively inserting himself into situations to create confrontations at a protest to get on video for his blog and got carried away. Not quite the same thing as being randomly set upon by a mob for no reason.

Yes, and still does not negate a claim of self defense. A reporter being assaulted by the people he’s reporting on still has the right to defend himself even though he inserted himself into the situation.

An armed society is a polite society, but that goes for the gun carrier as much as the rest of the public. Seems to me he is going to have a difficult time establishing a threat of grave bodily harm or death. Bodily harm? Maybe, but nothing I saw indicated they intended anything but non-lethal force, if you can even establish anything more than harassment (a push, a shove). Force must be met with equal force. Pulling a gun when the only indication is that a couple of people are harassing you is aggravated assault. Pulling a gun and shooting because some SJW cracks you across the mouth is murder. Deadly force in response to non-deadly.

I’m not suggesting he doesn’t get a jury instruction on self-defense and use of force in this instance. I’m not suggesting a use of force expert can’t testify about the reasonableness of his actions given that there was a mob. Angry? Hmmm… close call… didn’t look like lethally angry, and I think that’s a distinction that will be made here. But he’s the one with a legal defense fund seeking donations now because discretion was not the better part of valor for him. Sure, “SYG.” He has that right, but it’s going to cost him, one way or another. He is leaving his actions in the hands of 12 people believing the story his defense attorney weaves about what it reasonably looked like those people were doing. A prosecutor is going to have an equally compelling tale, IMO. The fact that there is disagreement on this forum tells me that he is going to trial. And I’ve seen good people convicted on a lot less. Even if they weren’t, their lives were pretty much ruined because of it.

I’m not sure how Oregon’s laws work on this so I might be off base but here in Colorado he would probably be OK. The way it was explained to me, if you have fore-knowledge that your assailants have the ability to cause grave bodily harm or death to you beyond your ability to defend yourself you can draw early enough to ensure that you can be on target before the threat is physically upon you. For instance, if you know your neighbor is a jujitsu black belt and he is yelling that he is going to kill you as he is running across the cul-de-sac at you (who has no hand to hand training) you are granted a few extra seconds to prepare yourself for the assault. The idea here is that you no longer have the “would a reasonable person think they were in danger” standard. You KNOW that the threat is real.

That said, multiple people yelling at you from multiple directions, all within 10-20 feet, one of which has already shoved him . . . I like to think I can hold my own against most people but I am quite certain I would suffer great bodily harm at the hands of that group. Since being in stupid places, with stupid people doing stupid things is not illegal, and since we do expect the media to go to these stupid places and document stupid people doing things I would need more evidence than what I saw in those videos to find him guilty of any legal wrong doing.

Stupid things happen in stupid places. That being said, I would say he was reasonable in fearing for his life, even moreso at the end with people shoving him. I doubt he had active restraints on the gun, so anyone close enough to shove him is close enough to grab his gun and shoot him.

This is more of a case of idiot continuing to charge a visibly armed man. Only mentally unstable people do that, so yes, he’s justified to defend himself. Someone “proving a point” or “being a tough guy” may not stop with a shove since obviously they are not thinking logically. Who here can say that if shoving the man caused him to fall that
A. the fall could cause a concussion or death (strange things do happen)
B. That the mob wouldn’t have started kicking/beating him
C. Couldn’t have used the opportunity to grab the firearm and shoot the “journalist”

I can see how a reasonable person could assume their life is in danger in this situation. My belief that it’s stupid to go to said event doesn’t justify the mob threatening him any more than a woman wearing evocative clothing doesn’t justify rape. It’s merely a stupid thing to do. One could claim that this is an example of the 2nd amendment protecting the 1st. Speaking your mind peacefully/lawfully then defending yourself if the opposing side resorts to physical violence or threats of violence would seem to be justifiable.

This happened in Portland Oregon near where I used to live. I know this place well. It would not matter if the crowd was a horde of ISIS terrorist wearing explosive vests, carrying AK’s, and shouting Allah Akbar, the Portland Police would have still arrested him and thrown the book at him. The Portland city government is more Progressive than most Progressives, and I would argue that they are sliding toward 1930’s style Fascism. Portland Police is seriously straddling that fence between appeasing their political masters and honoring their commitments to the Bill of Rights. I once watched Portland PD stand and do nothing while customers and the owners of a Jewish furrier were assaulted by protesters. (And before the trolls start claiming this is untrue, I advise them to look it up under Schumacher Furs. There is plenty of video.) Portland may look peaceful and “tolerant” through the windows of the gazillion Starbucks throughout the city, but in reality, they are a Hitler’s wet dream.

He better hire a really good and expensive attorney. It’s pretty plain to see he reasonably believed he was about to be attacked by an angry violent mob. In most pro gun rights States he could articulate why he feared iminate death or serious bodily injury, but he was in the liberal left coast State of Oregon so he’s pretty much f#€&ed when it comes to getting a fair shake from prosecutors or judges who are more likely than not liberal and anti gun.

He appeared to be creating distance and then drawing to defend himself. I think it could have been a seriously dangerous situation for him and morally, tactically he might have been justified in drawing. If he was being directly threatened and turned around to leave, he likely would have been jumped and at a great disadvantage. Unfortunately, I think legally he will be behind the 8-ball on this. I can’t see him winning this in a present-day court.

I think one thing to his advantage is that he was retreating and the crowd was continuing to advance. If his attorney can get that through clearly in court, he might have a chance.

Request a change of venue. Due to press and BLM action, he “obviously” can’t get a fair trial there. Remove the case to someplace very rural and conservative. Demand a jury trial. Breathe deep sigh of relief…

If you have never been in an unarmed fight and shed blood, had bones broken or had your level of consciousness altered from a blow, then you really do not know what you are talking about. It happens fast and none of us are as bad ass as we think we are.

His life could have changed in the blink of an eye. He likely knew the potential consequences of his actions and made his choice.

The question now is, do we support him or decide to let the thugs become the law. They need to learn what their boundaries are as well.

At the very start he is looking to both sides, which tells me that some of the mob were trying to flank him. If you are being pursued by enough people that you can’t see them all at once, that’s enough to be frightened for your own safety because you can’t possibly pay attention to all avenues of threat.

FWIW, I had a police encounter in Portland not too many years ago, and learned from the public defender that the prosecutor there has a shotgun approach: arrest as often as possible, prosecute every arrest. The result is that the day I sat in court, the judge dismissed better than one in ten cases and chewed out the arresting officer for not having real probable cause, something the defender said is par for the course because since officers get points for making arrests, they not infrequently arrest first and invent probable cause later.

So the near-ubiquity of people videoing any police and/or criminal activity wherever and whenever is a good thing: it’s harder to invent probable cause when the incident has been recorded.

At any rate, unless things have changed, if you draw in Portland it wouldn’t matter if you’re trying to stop someone openly wearing an explosive vest, you’re going to get arrested.

Anyone who thinks Strickland “asked for it” is spouting bull. That’s like saying Trayvon Martin had every right to resume contact with George Zimmerman and bash his head into the pavement just because he was followed earlier. Strickland was filming and exercising his 1A rights on public property and threatening absolutely no one. That times are politically intense does not grant you carte blanche to form emotionally unhinged mobs and threaten people just because they speak words you find “offensive”

My question is why he holstered his weapon after drawing it. He was clearly in the same situation as before he drew it, so holstering the weapon would have placed him back in imminent danger. If he really did not believe he was in imminent danger, why draw his weapon? Once the gun is out, if all things remain the same, putting the gun away will not deescalate a situation that warranted a gun in the first place.

My guess is that once he created distance, he felt the threat was no longer imminent enough to defend in court. With that distance, perhaps he thought that he could deescalate if he holstered. If I had taken those actions and had to defend them in court, that would be my answer.

Dude was looking for trouble and he found it. When they gave him what he was looking for, he went all Barney Fife on ’em. This really very easily could have been much worse, they’re all lucky blood wasn’t shed. Silliness. Don’t any of these people have anything better to do? Unbelievable.

I wouldn’t have drawn. My rule about drawing is that the situation has to be so bad that I’m done talking, and when my pistol clears the holster rounds are going down range. If I’m not prepared to fire, I’m not prepared to draw.

I would have shot. He holstered and tried to leave. One black thug that had been advocating capping kept agressing on him and the white guy that snuck up behind him and bumped him could have just as easily tackled him and helped beat him senseless or kill him. As far as I’m concerned his life was in imminent danger.

Favorite quote from Men in Black, ” …a person is smart, people are dumb panicky animals…” turning to run without showing a way to fight back would have triggered a predatory response of the crowd to chase. mob mentality always goes to lowest basic instincts.

Looks to me that he was backing off and the mob kept advancing on him. We can even hear someone tell the other guys to let him go, but they continue to advance on him. I guess most of you guys want him to wait until he is beaten to a pulp before he pulls his gun, right? And based on the “rest of the story” he had been previously assaulted and beaten up. I can’t blame him for pulling his gun. I wonder how many cops would have ventilated a few of them in the same curcumstances.If I was on the jury, my vote would be for “not guilty”

Obama has turned the streets into pure anarchy. Which is why we need Clinton to fix the mess Obama made fixing Bushes mess he inherited from Clinton who Bush left a mess for. Oh wait, this is all Reagans fault. Got it straight now. Anyways, enjoy Obamas Summer of Love Final Tour, and avoid large roving packs of Obama Youth.